March 5, 2008

If the superdelegates all voted with the winner of their state, would Hillary get the nomination? I think maybe. That would be one way she might colorably claim a superdelegate decision in her favor would vindicate democracy.

50 comments:

I think Obama has the better "moral" claim to the nomination. He is picking up the most votes, the most delegates, and he followed the rules in Florida and Michigan (something Democrats don't usually care about).

However, Clinton's claim of buyer's remorse is the "smart" even if it's the immoral choice. Obama is not qualified to be president. Something that will become more clear as time goes on.

I am not so sure if them together as running mates will help either. If Obama is at the top of the ticket, having Hillary only hurts his reputation of likability to change Washington. If Hillary gets the nod, she will have done so by convincinng everyone that Obama is not qualified to be president... then how will she reconcile chooising him as vice president if he is not qualified to be president?

Obama would be a fool to take the VP slot if offered by Hillary. He would do much better returning to the Senate and actually developing a record worth campaigning on in 2012 or 2016.

Since there is a 50-50 chance or greater than a Hillary presidency will be anywhere from simply bad to outright disasterous, I think he is too smart to tie himself to her and suffer the same fate as Gore.

Neither Clinton nor Obama gather enough delegates before the convention. Things get nasty at the convention between the nutsroots types and the DLC'ers. They go four or five ballots with no winner. Then Al Gore graciously offers himself up as a compromise candidate......

What was the deal last night with the Cuyahoga precincts that the federal judge ordered remain open upon request of Obama's attorneys?

"Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said everybody who wanted a ballot got one. Brunner charged that the Obama campaign targeted precincts where it could get extra votes by staying open. Jane Platten, the Cuyahoga County elections director, said the Obama campaign offered no proof to support their charges."

Then, on Fox or CNN, former Mondale campaign honcho Bob Beckel seconded that, adding that these were all heavily African-American precincts.

He also joked that on election night a favored Democratic candidate might often get a phone call from Cleveland election officials asking what the candidate wanted the final vote count to be.

As much as I dislike Hillary, she actually has a very strong case, if she frames it right. She needs to stop talking about delegates and start talking about vote totals.

Contrary to what sloanasaurus said, Hillary leads in the total votes cast for her. According to the ABC news website, she leads in votes, 13,565,918 to 13,559,724. Of course this lead is entirely due to Florida and Michigan, but she doesn't need to mention that. She doesn't even need to call for their pledged delegates to count. She can just point to the vote totals and claim that the super-delegates should break to her.

Contrary to what sloanasaurus said, Hillary leads in the total votes cast for her. According to the ABC news website, she leads in votes, 13,565,918 to 13,559,724. Of course this lead is entirely due to Florida and Michigan, but she doesn't need to mention that.

Hillary leads in the total votes cast for her. According to the ABC news website, she leads in votes, 13,565,918 to 13,559,724. Of course this lead is entirely due to Florida, but she doesn't need to mention that and Michigan...

As if that'd be an honest way to look at it.

Barring an unforseen Obama implosion or a Howard Dean moment, Hillary getting the nomination with manipulation of the super delegates would be outright theft, or would seem like it. The Democrats can kiss goodbye the blind support of blacks that they've enjoyed for the last 45 years.

You would think that The New York Times gets this whole superdelegate thing and would report it so everyone can understand it. After all, the Sulzberger family continues to control the corporation by its ownership of super voting equity interests.

The rules are that the superdelegates can vote for whomever they want. The idea of coming up with some new rule governing their votes in order to validate one candidate's case (pledged delegates for Obama, will of the states for Hillary) is really dumb.

The rules should be left as they were before this started, and that goes for MI and FL getting blocked out too. They knew the consequences when they decided to move their primary up. I wish people would stop whining about "disenfranchisement." That's utter BS.

Putting aside the stupidity of such a move, the superdelegates can pick anyone they choose, since it is the party choosing a nominee, not the people! While the party choice may not reflect the "will of the voters" the party developed this system to retain control of the process. As with all decisions, you have to live with the consequences.

Most of the super-ds are, themselves, elected officials, present or past. It's not a Politburo. The time to change the rules has come and gone. No one is stealing any properly won delegates from either candidate. This is a different phase of the competition, and the rules are what they are. If the super-ds want to vote 80-20 for one candidate, they have the authority to do that. And they wouldn't be stupid enough to fly in the face of clear voters' preferences. But in this case, voters' preferences are too close to call, so the super-ds get to decide. It shouldn't even be controversial.

Kaus is certainly right that both Obama and Hillary have to fashion a claim of entitlement to the nomination, and then make that argument to the superdelegates who will effectively choose the Dem nominee. He suggests "vindicate democracy" -- i.e., the super-delegates should follow their statewide vote -- as an available frame for Hillary.

But why statewide? A congressman could reasonably be expected to follow the vote in his district rather than his state. Most of the superdelegates are politicians, but relatively few are elected on s state-wide basis. More fundamentally, "entitlement" is a tricky notion for Dems, being the party committed to group rights and grievances, expansive notions of affirmative action and the like. I don't think pointing to state wide vote totals in a primary, and even less in a caucus, will persuade many super-delegates. Some pretty deep loyalties and commitments are in play; the gender/race issues make it a highly combustible mix. I think we're going to see an explosion at some point. The idea that it will all resolve nicely with a unity ticket of O-H or H-O and no hard feelings seems like a Dem's daydream.

Doyle has spelled it out very accurately. Its the democrat's party and they can do it anyway they want to. And everybody knew the rules going in. Of course the law of unintended consequences took over, and is going to make for something Americans havent seen since 1968: a brokered convention. (I remember a Herblock cartoon of Mayor Daley assuring LBJ that Hubert was going to be nominated with no problems).

So under the "rules", SC, NH, and IA would lose all superdelgates and half pledged delegates for violation of timing of caucuses and/or primaries. But they were not punished. Why?

Because SC, NH, and IA did not violate the rules. From democrats.org:

Last year the Party's Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling issued its recommendations on the 2008 primary and caucus calendar.

The Party recognizes the need early in the nominating process to broaden participation to reflect the Party’s rich racial, regional, and economic diversity by including 2 additional states. Twelve states applied to conduct early primaries and caucuses. We believe that shows the energy and excitement for opening up the process.

The addition of 2 states early in the process will also open up the dialogue to engage a broader range of people to talk about a wider variety of issues. This will enable the Democratic Party to choose the strongest candidate to be our Presidential nominee.

The new schedule is as follows:

* Iowa holds the first-in-the-nation caucus on January 14. * New Hampshire holds the first-in-the-nation primary on January 22. * Nevada conducts a caucus between Iowa and New Hampshire on Saturday, January 19. * South Carolina holds a primary 1 week after the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, January 29

The regular window will open for all other states on the first Tuesday in February -- February 5, 2008.

Hey, I get to agree with Doyle AND John Stodder. This really shouldn't be controversial.

Gore losing, while winning the popular vote, shouldn't have been controversial either. When elections come down to the margin-of-error, what really needs to happen is for both sides to take stock of what they're offering.

Remember that to the Dems the only important thing is the outcome, not the process as with conservatives. However you arive at that desired outcome doesn't matter. They all carry a pocket version of Machiavelli.

The reason why it is likely they will end up on the ticket together is because it will be necessary to unify the party, especially if things get nasty.

It's sort of like how John McCain will probably look to the right when he chooses his VP candidate, unless conservatives have rallied behind him by then.

At the same time, if they end up on a ticket together then there is reason for optimism no matter how bad things have gotten-- turnout in the Democratic primaries has been historically high, and getting both of their voters together (which in the primaries has included a sizeable number of first time voters) would give the Democrats a significant edge in turnout already.